On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 3:45 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Andrii, > > On 25/08/2022 19:37, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 8:28 AM Quentin Monnet <quentin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Wei, > >> > >> Apologies for failing to answer to your previous email and for the delay > >> on this one, I just found out GMail had classified them as spam :(. > >> > >> So as for your last message, yes: your understanding of my previous > >> answer was correct. Thanks for the patch below! Some comments inline. > >> > > > > Do we really want to add such a specific command to bpftool that would > > attach BPF object files with programs of only RAW_TRACEPOINT and > > RAW_TRACEPOINT_WRITABLE type? > > > > I could understand if we added something that would be equivalent of > > BPF skeleton's auto-attach method. That would make sense in some > > contexts, especially for some quick testing and validation, to avoid > > writing (a rather simple) user-space loading code. > > Do you mean loading and attaching in a single step, or keeping the > possibility to load first as in the current proposal? > > > > > But "perf attach" for raw_tp programs only? Seem way too limited and > > specific, just adding bloat to bpftool, IMO. > > We already support attaching some kinds of program types through > "prog|cgroup|net attach". Here I thought we could add support for other > types as a follow-up, but thinking again, you're probably right, it > would be best if all the types were supported from the start. Wei, have > you looked into how much work it would be to add support for > tracepoints, k(ret)probes, u(ret)probes as well? The code should be > mostly identical? Are you thinking to allow to attach individual BPF programs within BPF object, i.e., effectively bpftool as an interface to libbpf's bpf_program__attach()? Or you had more of BPF skeleton's auto-attach that attaches all auto-attachable BPF programs? > > Quentin >
